No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Silanda]

Why are people going on about shutting servers down before the game is even released ? Why would FD be thinking about that Don't seem logical to me

Two reasons that this eventuality concerns me:

1) Frontier are a relatively small company. If the servers become financially unviable they will have to be shut down. I find this concerning in another way: I don't understand what will be providing the funding for them long after release. Will something else (e.g. microtransactions/pay to win) need to be added to the game in order to keep the servers going a couple of years down the road?

2) I'm a retro gamer. I spend more of my time playing games that are 10+ years old than I do on new titles. I like to pick up games I have fond memories of and play them again. Hell, I still go back to playing the Frontier/Elite games every so often. In ten or fifteen years time I'll still be able to play Elite, Frontier, and FFE, but Elite Dangerous in any form? Unlikely.

Quite honestly, as a Kickstarter backer I feel betrayed by this news. I still would have backed the game in the knowledge that it would be online only, but it would have been at a lower level; the boxed version is as useful as a paperweight now. As soon as it became apparent to them that the offline mode was problematic, Frontier should have informed the backers unambiguously, with humility, contrition, and ideally with the option of a refund for those who wanted it. They didn't, they slipped it out with no apology, in a newsletter a month before the final release. Even then it required clarification here. I'm sorry but I find the way that Frontier has handled this to be ethically questionable at the very least.

 

[Theodrid]

Easier to be snide

I just wonder why you guys that 'knew this was coming' and was 'inevitable' didn't have the decency to bestow your wisdom on the rest of us before Friday gone?

 

[stimutacs]

Totally different game and game architecture. A valid grievance is undermined by a weak argument.

I know right. EA totally lied when they said they couldn't possibly let you sell trash or buy power from another city, or show trucks moving from one city to another without the cloud. Elite: Dangerous being unable to let you sell gold or buy tobacco from a station, or show you ships moving from one station to another without the cloud is a completely different thing.

 

[Seonid]

Hi FD, if offline mode is so difficult and impossible for you, perhaps you should hire a couple of people from EA's Simcity team who managed to figure it out 2 years into the game (after a hacker showed it was possible about a month in!)

Ridiculous excuses for DRM purposes just like EA.

So all SimCity players are playing in exactly the same City?

 

[everyone]

Stop acting so selfish and generally over-reacting at something that to you is just a game. For some it's our livelihood. Frontier is not showing you the finger and acting out of spite. It's acting in its self-interest but also your interest. Unless what you want is a game that's dead within months of release. People who keep banging on about kickstarter clearly have no idea about the amounts of money involved in gamedev - kickstarter didn't make this game happen, at best it's raised its profile and made it more viable to investors. And the money invested needs to be recuperated and that's why offline is being scrapped and not out of malice or spite. Offline would genuinely mean extra work and is less likely to make more money after release. Your complaining is not helping and will not change this. So maybe you really wanted an offline game, I feel for you but what is the point of continuing this acrimonious thread and spoiling it for the vast majority of people who support Frontier?

 

[moonsword]

Two reasons that this eventuality concerns me:

1) Frontier are a relatively small company. If the servers become financially unviable they will have to be shut down. I find this concerning in another way: I don't understand what will be providing the funding for them long after release. Will something else (e.g. microtransactions/pay to win) need to be added to the game in order to keep the servers going a couple of years down the road?

I wouldn't call a game development company of 300 people small.

Quite honestly, as a Kickstarter backer I feel betrayed by this news. I still would have backed the game in the knowledge that it would be online only, but it would have been at a lower level; the boxed version is as useful as a paperweight now. As soon as it became apparent to them that the offline mode was problematic, Frontier should have informed the backers unambiguously, with humility, contrition, and ideally with the option of a refund for those who wanted it. They didn't, they slipped it out with no apology, in a newsletter a month before the final release. Even then it required clarification here. I'm sorry but I find the way that Frontier has handled this to be ethically questionable at the very least.

I guess they had simply all their hands full .....

 

[elkar]

you haven't been reading have you...

Apparently not enough. Otherwise I'd be panicking too.

 

[Zuikaku]

Stop acting so selfish and generally over-reacting at something that to you is just a game. For some it's our livelihood. Frontier is not showing you the finger and acting out of spite. It's acting in its self-interest but also your interest. Unless what you want is a game that's dead within months of release. People who keep banging on about kickstarter clearly have no idea about the amounts of money involved in gamedev - kickstarter didn't make this game happen, at best it's raised its profile and made it more viable to investors. And the money invested needs to be recuperated and that's why offline is being scrapped and not out of malice or spite. Offline would genuinely mean extra work and is less likely to make more money after release. Your complaining is not helping and will not change this. So maybe you really wanted an offline game, I feel for you but what is the point of continuing this acrimonious thread and spoiling it for the vast majority of people who support Frontier?

So, the "offline players" did not support FDs? So it's OK to talk about listening to what fans wish and then forgetting the promises (to the people who supported the project with money) if profit for shareholders could be lower or higher?

And when are you going to understand that "offline players" are not your enemy and do not want to ruin the game for you. You are reacting like we are about to storm the FDs offices and burn everything down!

 

[Perramas]

Jesus, there will be round about 400 billion systems still left for exploring....
and in addition if you do not buy the "explored" data within the space stations,
these systems will be treated by your ships computer as being unexplored.

What about the trade routes and markets that will be affected by all the bots, hacks and RMTers. Its not just the exploration, its the trade routes, ships and equipment that will be affected in the not so solo game that is offered.

 

[Darcsheer]

I really empathize with the folks who feel they were betrayed. I do. I've been there. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that people act like adults, ask for refunds where feasible and move on with their lives.

Something folks need to realize is this; ED is a product that FD is producing. Backers invested and were promised a list of things based on the level of backing they elected. What the final version of the game itself, FD's product, looks like is up to the development team and that product does not belong to the backers in any way.

Here's what I mean. If you backed at the £25 level you were promised: "Download a single copy of the game and also gain 500 credits when starting a new game. Plus all of the rewards listed above, except the limited £20 reward. Higher rewards gain the 500 credit bonus, but this only applies if the default starting option is selected."

What the final version of the game would look like is not specified anywhere in the list of rewards for any level of backing. The list of rewards is what a lawyer will tell you was promised to you for your financial investment.

I'm not sure of the law in other countries (I'm in the U.S.), but I understand lawyers fairly well and they'll look at what the backers were promised. The planned goals of the project do not constitute a promise. Plaintiffs would no doubt argue that the only reason/primary reason they backed was because of the offline version being part of the original plan, but in the end that's not what was promised.

I once invested in a company because of a product they planned to release. That product never made it to market. I was disappointed, but I was never promised that product. This situation is legally identical.

 

[Warbler]

kickstarter didn't make this game happen, at best it's raised its profile and made it more viable to investors.

Actually the Kickstarter was used as a measuring stick to guage the demand for a game like ED. Without that money development wouldn't have gone ahead.

 

[moonsword]

And as I mentioned in another thread which was closed because of this thread... I like to mention:

Ok, I am forced to have an internet connection always up but as compensation I will get a Galaxy that will be changed dynamically, in such a comprehensible way, a procedurally produced Galaxy would never be!
We lose the internet-offline mode BUT we get undoubtedly something BETTER for it!

 

[Seonid]

Its not just the exploration, its the trade routes, ships and equipment that will be affected in the not so solo game that is offered.

Then you find different trade routes surely?

 

[CmdrTwisted]

This news isn't pleasing to see. Right now the servers aren't up to the job and there are very noticeable pauses while getting information from the server. Not to mention that a lot of the problems people had in simply getting to play the game last in the server side. Now there no option but to be at the mercy of dodgy internet connections and server issues.

Not cool. But even with the current connectivity I am finding the Ed universe becoming very samesy and repetitive. So if frontier is depending on events to relieve the very limited current gameplay options then they have a ton of work on their plate.

IMO a lot of the compromise and bad news and lack of features seem to be driven by a hard deadline that must be reached even at high cost to the game. Wonder why this could be?

 

[sneferu]

Hi FD, if offline mode is so difficult and impossible for you, perhaps you should hire a couple of people from EA's Simcity team who managed to figure it out 2 years into the game (after a hacker showed it was possible about a month in!)

Ridiculous excuses for DRM purposes just like EA.

As you say, Maxis/EA spent 2 years trying to undo a decision they already made (I'm not saying it was a good decision), instead of focusing all their energies on improving the game. And when they finally launched the offline mode, nobody cared about the game anymore. I hope FD don't do the same. I prefer an awesome online game than a mediocre game with a great offline mode.

 

[SalsaDMA]

And as I mentioned in another thread which was closed because of this thread... I like to mention:

Ok, I am forced to have an internet connection always up but as compensation I will get a Galaxy that will be changed dynamically, in such a comprehensible way, a procedurally produced Galaxy would never be!
We lose the internet-offline mode BUT we get undoubtedly something BETTER for it!

-"Can I get an apple for my money?"
-"Sure"
-"Ok, here is my money"
-"And here is your orange"
-"Wait, orange??? You told me I would get an apple!"
-"But an orange is so much better for you!"

Yeah, really swell...

 

[moonsword]

What about the trade routes and markets that will be affected by all the bots, hacks and RMTers. Its not just the exploration, its the trade routes, ships and equipment that will be affected in the not so solo game that is offered.

But if I imagine to get a totally internet free game which fully procedually creating its content I also would expect the trades routes to get changed by the game itself... as it would be in a "real" developing Galaxy or system.
A totally static universe would get boring to me soon...

 

[mbabbs]

And as I mentioned in another thread which was closed because of this thread... I like to mention:

Ok, I am forced to have an internet connection always up but as compensation I will get a Galaxy that will be changed dynamically, in such a comprehensible way, a procedurally produced Galaxy would never be!
We lose the internet-offline mode BUT we get undoubtedly something BETTER for it!

We're with you on that moonsword. However there are many players who will now not be able to play the game at all and for them we feel sorry.

 

[Demosthien]

Oh yes, I see you are the expert. Joined the forum today, and already 7 posts in the thread. You must be so hurt and betrayed personally.

That comment is not helpful nor do you appear to appreciate you seeing that, despite Gazz's lack of posts in the forum, by paying his cash for the game Gazz has just as much right to comment and complain as anyone else does.

 

[SalsaDMA]

But if I imagine to get a totally internet free game which fully procedually creating its content I also would expect the trades routes to get changed by the game itself... as it would be in a "real" developing Galaxy or system.
A totally static universe would get boring to me soon...

Yet this "boring" static universe somehow managed to keep to old games alive for more years than Brabens new servers will live.

Please don't asume your personal opinion is universal for everyone.